April headlines

Return to April article index

Small corn companies enroll in USDA buyback - WSJ

April 24
Reuters

New York - The Agriculture Department said 77 small seed companies have enrolled in a government buyback program for corn seed contaminated with a genetically modified variety not approved for human use, the Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition on Tuesday.

The companies produce less than one percent of all corn seed in the United States, the paper said. The department doesn't know how much StarLink-contaminated corn seed each of the companies has found, the report said.

Last month, the USDA offered to buy potentially contaminated seed in an effort to keep it out of this year's crop.

The USDA said it would spend about $20 million to purchase about one percent of this year's spring planting corn seed suspected of being tainted with StarLink's Cry9c protein. The protein is the key component that protects young plants from destructive pests.

StarLink, made by the Franco-German pharmaceutical group Aventis , was barred by U.S. regulators for human use because of concerns that it might cause allergic reactions. The discovery of the gene-altered corn in taco shells last September triggered the eventual recall of more than 300 U.S. foods.

TV preview: Food fight

PBS tackles issue of modified crops

April 24
Washington Post

Genetically modified food is the perfect issue for our self-involved, rightfully paranoid age. And we might as well acknowledge now that there is no right response to it -- we can't put the technological genie back in the bottle, as some would have us do, but we can't let all the genies run around loose, either. It is, as a two-hour "Frontline"/"Nova" special airing tonight at 9 on Channel 26 says, "a moral quagmire."

Producer, writer and director Jon Palfreman has clearly put a lot of effort into this primer on the controversy about creating newfoods "improved" with genetic additions. (The strawberry injected with a fish gene to prevent frost damage is one of the most famous.) The science is made simple -- but not quite simple enough -- for the layman, and the discussion is reasonably balanced. I came away believing that Monsanto was not necessarily an evil empire, that the eco-terrorists who set fires and destroy crops are not helping anyone, and that I would eat the Vitamin A-enriched "gold rice" but not the fast-growing cultivated Atlantic salmon.

The program is constructed a little clumsily, with the most compelling moral dilemmas coming in the second half. An ongoing story about papayas in Hawaii is threaded throughout, an attempt at a unifying story line that is visited too sporadically to work as such. Palfreman'sattempt to remain balanced seems to have made him more methodical -- i.e., plodding, a problem that is easier to avoid if you are pushing a particular viewpoint.

In one of the more interesting vignettes, Florence Wambugu, an agronomist from Kenya, describes how all farming there is "organic" and has produced low yields and hungry people. She spent three years at Monsantoin the United States developing a genetically modified sweet potato to help the farmers in her country, where the crop has been nearly destroyed by a virus. The engineered sweet potato is virus-resistant, requires no pesticides and holds the promise of feeding some of the 800 million chronically undernourished people in the world.

Wambugu is scornful of the environmental "hooligans," whom she sees as trying to tear down many years of work on behalf of romantic notions and bad science. "They don't have a clue," she says. "They get food in the supermarket." The Greenpeace-promoted idea that the solution to Third World malnutrition is to simply provide food from elsewhere ignores the cultural significance of pride in the ability to feed your family, she says.

The view of the Earth Liberation Front, which claimed responsibility for a fire at Michigan State University that destroyed the offices and laboratories where the Kenyan sweet potato was developed, is that Monsanto is trying to get rich by coercing developing countries to abandon traditional farming methods. It doesn't sound that simple.

On the other hand, the prospect of those engineered salmon is unnerving. They are bred in ponds and have been fixed somehow to grow from eggs to maturity more quickly than regular fish. But according to calculations made by Charles Arntzen of Cornell University, the fish mate more often but no eggs survive, meaning if even one got out of its pond and started swimming with the real salmon, there would eventually be no fish at all. "It's a potential catastrophe," he says. The math doesn't work for me, but it sure sounds scary. And to a public that remembers asbestos, tobacco and Chernobyl, assurances from Elliot Entis of Aqua Bounty Farms that this scenario could never happen are hardly reassuring.

And this, of course, is one of the underlying problems in the debate. Nobody trusts official guarantees of safety anymore. StarLink corn, which is injected with a pesticide, was supposed to be used only for animal feed. But somehow -- economic pressures, sloppy management -- it ended up in Taco Bell's tacos. Nobody knows whether it harmed anyone, but it cost the product's manufacturer $1 billion to deal with the problem, and traces of the corn were still found all over the world.

Although numerous products contain genetically modified corn, manufacturers are not required to label them as such. Thus, points out Jane Rissler of the Union of Concerned Scientists, if anyone did have an allergic reaction, no one would connect the problem to the product. Although surveys show that Americans would feel far more friendly toward genetically engineered food if they could choose when they eat it, the Grocery Manufacturers' Association is fighting labeling proposals.

We should appreciate the doomsayers like Jeremy Rifkin, author of "The Biotech Century" and a longtime opponent of the new miracle foods, who says the unknown effects could be irreversible. People like him have at least slowed down the process, and that seems like a good idea.

Biotech corn found in variety of foods

FDA testing for possible allergic reactions

April 24
Washington Post

A genetically engineered variety of corn that caused massive recalls of taco shells last year has spread further through the food supply than had been thought and is present in a much wider range of processed foods, officials reported yesterday.

The corn, known as StarLink, was found in new categories of corn products such as corn bread, polenta and hush puppies in tests conducted by the company that developed the corn. StarLink was never approved for human consumption because of concerns it might cause dangerous allergic reactions.

Officials at the company, Aventis CropSciences of Research Triangle, N.C., said the levels it detected were very low, and that any health risk posed by the corn is extremely small.

While federal authorities have said the risk to public health from the unapproved corn is remote, the Food and Drug Administration is testing the blood of about 20 people who believe they may have suffered allergic reactions to the genetically engineered corn. Aventis officials voiced concerns yesterday about the FDA tests, saying that their parallel efforts were coming up with false positive results and that it may be impossible to determine whether the people had allergic reactions to StarLink.

The discovery of more corn products with even trace levels of StarLink raises questions about whether food recalls may be necessary again and whether foreign countries opposed to genetically engineered crops may boycott U.S. food products on a increased scale. The Japanese government, for instance, made the importing of corn products with any traces of StarLink into a potentially criminal act early this month.

Aventis referred to these possibilities yesterday when it reported the results of its testing to the Environmental Protection Agency. The company had previously asked the agency for a retroactive exemption to allow the presence of StarLink in food, but yesterday amended its request to allow for as much as 20 parts per billion of the modified corn.

"If the EPA does not act now, the ongoing disruption in the domestic and international food markets -- in the form of recalls and rejections of exported products -- undoubtedly will escalate," the Aventis report concludes.

The company said it tested 12 representative products made with yellow corn, which together make up about 90 percent of the products made with the corn. Six of those tested were found to have detectable levels of a protein found in StarLink known as Cry9C, the company said.

Aventis also said that traces of the modified corn are likely to be found in many yellow corn products for the foreseeable future. Officials said that a "commonsense solution" was needed to deal with that reality.

But environmental and food safety groups have argued against granting Aventis any exemption, especially before conclusions are reached about whether it can cause food allergies. They have also opposed any kind of retroactive approval, saying that it would help Aventis but not the American public.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the subject, StarLink was discussed in a senior White House meeting yesterday with chief economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey and officials from several agencies. "We're continuing to review the science, to work in cooperation with growers and millers to steer StarLink away from the food supply," said White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan. "Our policy continues to be that StarLink is not approved for human consumption."

In December, a scientific advisory panel to the EPA concluded there was a "medium likelihood" that StarLink protein is a potential allergen. But it reported that because of the low levels of StarLink in the American diet, there was a "low probability" of allergic reactions.

Despite the low risk, the genetically modifed corn has become a regulatory and now trade nightmare because it was never supposed to be in the food chain at all. The corn was engineered to produce a protein that repels a major corn pest, the European corn borer, and was approved for animal feed only. But precautions developed to keep it out of the human food chain failed.

The Agriculture Department has reported that bulk corn shipments to Japan and Korea have declined, apparently because of concern over StarLink, and the presence of the corn in processed foods makes the situation more complex. An official of the European Union said yesterday, for instance, that if any unapproved biotech products were found in imported processed foods, they would be shipped back.

In its report yesterday, Aventis said its scientists found that the StarLink protein is substantially broken down during the processing of corn products. They said the StarLink protein in products that are heated, pressurized or treated with alkaline agents will essentially disappear. That's why the protein was found in corn muffins, but not in more highly processed corn flakes.

An official of the FDA, which has the authority to order product recalls, said the agency was not familiar with the new Aventis report. But the agency has been testing for StarLink in a range of products, the official said, and has so far found it only in taco shells and some corn used by small brewers of beer.

Aventis has bought and diverted most of last year's StarLink corn, and now has small labs in all dry milling plants where corn is broken down for use in foods such as corn chips and corn bread. The tests used in those labs, and approved by federal authorities, will detect StarLink at the rate of more than 20 parts per billion. The EPA concluded last year that the wet milling process, which turns corn into syrup and oil, destroys StarLink to the point that it poses no risk.

World demand too great to ignore GM food, scientists say

April 24
Scotsman

WORLD agriculture can’t afford to ignore any system which will help it meet the demands of an increasing world populations, say scientists.

Genetically modified crops able to deal with low water supply will be needed increasingly in arid areas, while other countries may demand extensive or organic agriculture for ethical and environmental reasons.

A three-day meeting of 200 scientists at the John Innes Centre in Norwich - a research station at the leading edge of GM research - tried to reach consensus on how global farming could meet the likely food and other demands of 2020.

The guru of the "green revolution" of the 1960s and 1970s, Professor MS Swaminathan, said projections for food grains demand and supply in 20 years’ time ranged between hope and despair, but with a whole range of technologies now available there were hopes for a revolution.

"Most developing countries have no option except to produce more from less arable land and irrigation water resources," he said.

"This is why there is a need for an evergreen revolution based on achieving continuous improvements in productivity without associated social or ecological harm."

Injecting a note of concern for the biodiversity of the countryside, particularly in developed countries, Professor Alan Gray, the director of the Center for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset, said the challenge for the developing world was to find ways of reducing the environmental impact of increased intensification.

He was optimistic that, given the political will, science would provide the global agricultural systems needed to feed an extra two billion mouths in 2020, as well as retaining an acceptable level of countryside biodiversity. "Tweaking the edges of conventional agriculture can have amazing effects," he said.

However, the third keynote speaker, Dr Barbara Mazur, of Dupont Agriculture products in the US, remained unshakeable in her view that biotechnology offered the best hope of meeting future demands. Her reply to questions on public acceptability of bio-engineered foodstuffs remained the standard company response of being "committed to safety".

At first sight this might have caused a knee-jerk reaction among consumer representatives, but Robin Simpson, the director of special projects with the National Consumer Council, conceded that, while he had not been the subject of Damascene conversion, he had been impressed by the seriousness of the wider implications of the conference.

"It is very difficult to be dogmatic about the situation worldwide. For example, there was a lot of discussion about the need to develop strains of crops that were low in their use of water and water is clearly something which will be a major issue fairly soon."

But he pointed out that agronomic progress had the potential to create havoc with "demented policies" that lead to chronic oversupply.

Brazil court battle for GM soy

April 23
BBC

Consumer and environmental groups are fighting a rearguard action in the Brazilian courts to try to prevent the government legalizing the cultivation of genetically modified soya

Brazil is the last large-scale producer of soy beans not to introduce GM varieties - making many European retailers, which want to remain GM-free, come here to buy.

At the same time, the Brazilian Government is funding a multi-million dollar research program to use genetic modification on a wide variety of tropical crops, which it says could be of benefit to developing countries around the world.

The government, lobbied by multinationals like the GM giant Monsanto, which wants to sell in Brazil, tried to legalize GM soya.

But consumer organizations successfully blocked this in the courts when a federal judge ruled that the necessary tests and studies had not been carried out to make sure the crop was not harmful to consumers or the environment.

The pro-GM lobby is this month appealing against the ruling.

Organic exports

The issue has divided scientists and farmers - many of whom do not feel they have enough knowledge to make correct decisions.

Like most small farmers in the fertile valleys of Parana, close to the border of Argentina and Paraguay, Duilio Chomulera's family came here from Europe only a generation ago.

They brought with them the traditional farming techniques which Duilio's grandfather once used in Italy.

Today he and his son grow a variety of crops on their 15 hectares (90 acres) of land, as well as keeping enough cows, pigs and chickens for their own needs.

He is one of 300 farmers in the region who recently switched to growing entirely organic crops for export to Europe.

His soy beans are turned into oil to be sold to the British cosmetics chain The Body Shop.

He has been told by agronomists working on the "Terra Preservada" or "Protected Earth" project that GM crops are bad.

"I've heard," he said, "that they have been modified to produce a poison which kills everything except the soya. I believe that some of that poison must stay in the plant and be bad for both people and animals - not to mention the environment."

Smuggling

Already, however, GM soya, which is legal across the border in Argentina, is being smuggled into Brazil to be sold and planted.

Every trailer load brought into the Terra Preservada plant to be processed has to be tested to make sure it is GM-free.

If GM crops become legal in Brazil, the costs of keeping produce GM-free and organic will become much higher.

All machinery and trailers will have to be used exclusively for non-GM crops. With produce like maize, preventing cross pollination from neighboring fields will be almost impossible.

"If they legalize GM soya it will be very bad for Brazil," said Terra Preservada agronomist Cezar Colussi.

"They are promising that it will solve the hunger of the world, but this is not what is needed."

Research

Dr Crodowaldo Pavan, a top Brazilian genetics scientist and honorary President of the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science, disagrees vehemently, dismissing opposition as based on superstition or ignorance.

"I passionately believe that they should be legalized," he said.

"We can show that they are safer than conventional crops, requiring less pesticides and fertilizers. Half of the world's population does not reach full human development because they do not have enough food. That is a crime which we have the power to prevent."

He is currently working on developing bacteria which will produce nitrates in the soil, avoiding the use of fertilizers which end up contaminating water supplies.

It is one of many such government sponsored research projects in Brazil, which has developed produce from disease-resistant citrus fruits and papaya to multi-colored sunflowers.

Brazil is also the first developing country to clone a sheep.

Dr Pavan believes the issue has aroused so much opposition because it has become confused with that of multinationals patenting genes to control the market.

"I do not believe that people should be allowed to patent genes," he said.

"And of course there have to be checks against whatever kind of thing multinationals want to do. But just because something can be used in the wrong way - it is absurd to ban it altogether."

Arrogance

Other farmers organizations, like the Brazilian Rural Society, also favor making GM crops legal - but Luiz Hafers, the society's president, believes "while the discussion may be technical, the decision is political," and can only be made by public opinion of consumers.

He criticizes the "arrogance" of Monsanto and others developing GM crops for the way they have tried to introduce products without winning over public opinion.

The decision will ultimately now be made by the Brazilian courts - which some fear could take years. That could lead to the worst solution all round - a growth of smuggling GM seeds and products in Brazil with no proper regulation for their use.

Biotech crops feeding debate

April 23
Toronto Star

London - The debate over genetically modified, or GM, crops in Europe has taken a back seat to more immediate concerns about foot-and-mouth disease, but for those involved in the fight, the issue of biotech foods looms as large as ever.

With the spring planting season rolling on and the latest farm-scale trials for GM sugar, fodder beet and oilseed rape getting under way in Britain, a perennial crop of questions sprouts all along the supply chain about whether there really is a market for GM products.

Tony Combes, director of corporate affairs for Monsanto U.K. Ltd., has heard the doubts before, and said they're answered by U.S. agriculture department data about the planting intentions of U.S. farmers.

``Every year at this time, we get comments about the market disappearing,`` Combes said.

``And every year we see an increase in plantings of genetically modified crops.``

Paul Rylott, seeds manager at Aventis SA, said that as some of the crops being tested in Britain are being grown for the second and third times, people can see for themselves ``that it's not a scary thing.``

However, it's not entirely clear that acceptance of such crops in the United States, or anecdotal evidence of acceptance in Britain, equates to automatic acceptance in the rest of Europe.

In Germany, Greenpeace international coordinator of the campaign against GM crops is a firm believer that, even as the crop-science companies press ahead with development efforts in Europe, they're racing to supply a vanishing market.

But Vivian Moses, chairman of the pro-biotechnology CropGen panel, said public opinion actually appears to have grown more accepting of genetically modified crops.

``I suspect that here and there people might be getting a little fed up with (the environmental protesters) because nothing's actually happened,`` said Moses.

``If something happened it would be different, but crying wolf forever has the usual effect.``

Concern over Sri Lanka GM ban

April 23
BBC

Food importers in Sri Lanka say they will not be able to comply with a comprehensive ban on all types of genetically modified food.

The ban comes into effect in Sri Lanka at the beginning of May.

It was announced earlier this month, despite concerns from the importers that they will not be able to meet the requirements for scientific testing.

Environmental groups have expressed their support for the restrictions.

Complaints

This blanket ban on genetically modified food is based very much on fears about such items in Europe.

Local consumer and environmental groups have welcomed the restrictions, saying that until such foods are proved to be completely safe, they should be kept out of the country.

But food importers have raised two objections:

• That there is no definitive proof that GM food is harmful.
• That proper testing is not available to prove that foods from the list of items in the new legislation contain no GM material.

All of these are in relatively common use in Sri Lanka and importers say the import restrictions could cause problems for local consumers.

Safety

A spokesman for the National Chamber of Commerce, DJ Abeysekara, said importers had made their concerns known to the government last year.

The leading importer of soy bean products, Soy Foods Lanka Limited, has taken out newspaper advertisements, assuring consumers that everything they sell is free of GM material.

The director general of health services for the government, Dr A Beligaswatte, says the ban will remain in place until worldwide concerns about GM foods are settled.

He says the safety of consumers is paramount, and it is the responsibility of anyone selling any kind of food to make sure that it is not harmful.

Big vote for organic food

75 percent would rather pay extra than buy GM products, survey says

April 23
Montreal Gazette

More than 75 percent of Quebecers would rather pay extra for organic food than buy genetically-modified products at lower prices, a recent survey found.

The poll, which asked several questions about food safety and health, was done for Quebec Science and Protegez-Vous magazines. The polling company, Leger Marketing, surveyed 1,000 people in February.

The survey asked respondents which worried them more: the genetic modification of food, bacterial contamination of meat, the mad-cow crisis in

Europe, the use of pesticides and fertilizers in agriculture or the use of growth hormones and antibiotics in meat.

A quarter of the respondents said the genetic modification of food - where genes from another organism are inserted into a plant or animal - was worrisome. Nearly the same number said they were concerned about the bacterial contamination of their meat.

Main Concerns

Just over 18 percent said mad-cow disease in Europe was their gravest concern, while 15.2 percent said it was the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Nearly 14 percent said it was the use of hormones and antibiotics in beef.

Most people who responded to the poll had little confidence in government regulators when it comes to ensuring the safety of the food we eat. Just 6.4 percent of respondents said they had the most confidence in government regulators.

Consumer groups came out on top for confidence with 32.2 percent of the results and health professionals were second at 22.8 per cent.

The third group may come as a surprise - 14 percent of respondents said they trusted the associations that represent food producers the most.

The vast majority of men and women would prefer to eat food that has been produced organically - that is, without the use of chemical fertilizers or pesticides and free of genetically-modified organisms.

Even though organic food can cost as much as four times the price of conventional food, more than two-thirds of respondents from households earning less than $20,000 said they would prefer to eat organic.